Recent Headlines in the IP World:
- Blake Brittain: Senators Slam Albright Over ‘Extreme Concentration’ of Patent Cases (Source: Reuters)
- Smart & Biggar: Supreme Court of Canada Denies Leave Regarding Lisdexamfetamine Patent Decision (Source: JD Supra)
- Blake Brittain: Week Ahead in Intellectual Property: Nov. 1, 2021 (Source: Reuters)
- Stephanie Nolen: Merck Will Share Formula for Its Covid Pill With Poor Countries (Source: The New York Times)
- Ali Jones: Sony’s New Patent Could Bring Real-Time Image Upscaling to PS5 and PSVR PS5 (Source: Games Radar)
Commentary and Journal Articles:
- Prof. Mason Marks and Prof. I. Glenn Cohen: Patents on Psychedelics: The Next Legal Battlefront of Drug Development (Source: SSRN)
- Hon. Paul R. Michel: Time to Fight Back Against Big Tech’s IP Assault (Source: Newsweek)
- Prof. Sharon K. Sandeen: A Typology of Disclosure (Source: SSRN)
- Prof. Peter Lee: Patent Law’s Externality Asymmetry (Source: SSRN)
New Job Postings on Patently-O:
- Daikin NA
- H.C. Park & Associates, PLC
- Hanley, Flight & Zimmerman, LLC
- Klarquist – Mechanical Patent Attorney/Agent
- Withrow + Terranova, PLLC
- Klarquist – Computer Science Patent Attorney/Agent
- Klarquist – Litigation/IPR Associate
- Klarquist – Chemistry Patent Attorney/Agent
- Servilla Whitney LLC
- University of Notre Dame
- Baker Botts LLP
- Daly, Crowley, Mofford & Durkee, LLP
- NYU Grossman School of Medicine
- Ballard Spahr LLP – Electrical/Computer Engineering Patent Prosecution Associate
- Ballard Spahr LLP – Electrical/Computer Engineering Patent Prosecution Senior Attorney
- Shay Glenn LLP
Somewhat off topic, but I was reminded of Judge Michel’s article linked above as I was reading this morning’s Rule 36 affirmance in In re Google. This was an appeal from the PTAB following a rejection in ex parte prosecution. The rejected claim reads:
I bet that no one is surprised that this claim was rejected by the USPTO. The surprising bit is that—by the time it came in front of the PTAB—it was rejected only on obviousness grounds. There were no subject matter eligibility rejections.
Evidently, Judge Michel’s supposition that Google is getting special treatment in the courts does not go so far as allowing it to get to grant on unpatentable claims. I am hard pressed to believe, however, that the above claim would have withstood a §101 challenge if Google had ever tried to enforce.
It MAY reflect though Google’s (rather unbelievable) assertion that IT does not see 101 problems on the patent applications that it processes.
(as opposed to most all other players saying the opposite)
Comments are closed.